Germany: the welfare state from Bismarck to Adenauer. Bismarck's internal politics Leaving the university

As a result of the defeat of the French in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, the French Emperor Napoleon III was captured, and Paris had to go through another revolution. And on March 2, 1871, the difficult and humiliating Treaty of Paris was concluded for France. The territories of Alsace and Lorraine, the kingdoms of Saxony, Bavaria and Württemberg were annexed to Prussia. France should have paid 5 billion indemnities to the winners. Wilhelm I returned to Berlin in triumph, despite the fact that all the credit for this war belonged to the chancellor.

Victory in this war made possible the revival of the German Empire. Back in November 1870, the unification of the southern German states took place within the framework of the United German Confederation, transformed from the Northern one. And in December 1870, the Bavarian king made a proposal to restore the German Empire and German imperial dignity, which were once destroyed by Napoleon Bonaparte. This proposal was accepted, and the Reichstag sent a request to Wilhelm I to accept the imperial crown. On January 18, 1871, Otto von Bismarck (1815 - 1898) proclaimed the creation of the Second Reich, and Wilhelm I was proclaimed Emperor (Kaiser) of Germany. At Versailles in 1871, when writing the address on the envelope, Wilhelm I indicated "Chancellor of the German Empire", thus confirming Bismarck's right to rule the created empire.

The “Iron Chancellor,” acting in the interests of absolute power, ruled the newly formed state in 1871-1890, from 1866 to 1878, with the support of the National Liberal Party in the Reichstag. Bismarck carried out global reforms in the field of German law, and he also did not ignore the system of management and finance. The implementation of educational reform in 1873 gave rise to a conflict with the Roman Catholic Church, although the main reason for the conflict was the growing distrust of German Catholics (who made up almost a third of all the country's inhabitants) towards the Protestant population of Prussia. In the early 1870s, after these contradictions manifested themselves in the work of the Catholic Center Party in the Reichstag, Bismarck was forced to take action. The fight against the dominance of the Catholic Church is known as the Kulturkampf (struggle for culture). During this struggle, many bishops and priests were placed under arrest, and hundreds of dioceses were left without leaders. Subsequently, church appointments had to be coordinated with the state; Church officials were not allowed to hold official positions in the state apparatus. Schools were separated from the church, the institution of civil marriage was created, and the Jesuits were completely expelled from Germany.

In constructing his foreign policy, Bismarck was based on the situation that arose in 1871 thanks to the victory of Prussia in the Franco-Prussian War and the acquisition of Alsace and Lorraine, which turned into a source of continuous tension. Using a complex system of alliances that made it possible to ensure the isolation of France, the rapprochement of the German state with Austria-Hungary, as well as maintaining good relations with the Russian Empire (the alliance of three emperors: Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1873 and 1881; the existence of the Austro-German alliance in 1879 year; the conclusion of the “Triple Alliance” between the rulers of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy in 1882; the “Mediterranean Agreement” of Austria-Hungary, Italy and England in 1887, as well as the conclusion of the “reinsurance treaty” with Russia in 1887), Bismarck supported peace throughout Europe. During the reign of Chancellor Bismarck, the German Empire became one of the leaders in the international political arena.

When building his foreign policy, Bismarck made a lot of efforts to consolidate the gains gained as a result of the signing of the Frankfurt Peace in 1871, sought to ensure the diplomatic isolation of the French Republic and tried by any means to prevent the formation of any coalition if it could become a threat to German hegemony. He preferred not to take part in discussions of claims against the weakened Ottoman Empire. Despite the fact that the “Triple Alliance” was concluded against France and Russia, the “Iron Chancellor” was firmly convinced that a war with Russia could be extremely dangerous for Germany. The existence of a secret treaty with Russia in 1887 - a “reinsurance treaty” - shows that Bismarck was not above acting behind the backs of his own allies, Italy and Austria, in order to maintain the status quo both in the Balkans and in the Middle East.

And Bismarck did not clearly define the course of colonial policy until 1884; the main reason for this was friendly relations with England. Among other reasons, it is customary to cite the desire to preserve public capital by minimizing government expenses. The first expansionist plans of the “Iron Chancellor” were met with energetic protest from every party - Catholics, socialists, statists, as well as among the junkers who represented him. Despite this, it was during the reign of Bismarck that Germany became a colonial empire.

In 1879, Bismarck broke with the liberals, subsequently relying only on the support of a coalition of large landowners, the military and state elite, and industrialists.

At the same time, Chancellor Bismarck managed to get the Reichstag to adopt a protective customs tariff. Liberals were forced out of big politics. The direction of the new course of economic and financial policy of the German Empire reflected the interests of large industrialists and farmers. This union managed to occupy a dominant position in the sphere of public administration and political life. Thus, there was a gradual transition of Otto von Bismarck from the Kulturkampf policy to the beginning of the persecution of socialists. After the attempt on the life of the sovereign in 1878, Bismarck passed through the Reichstag an “exceptional law” directed against the socialists, since it prohibited the activities of any social democratic organization. The constructive side of this law was the introduction of a state insurance system in case of illness (1883) or injury (1884), as well as old-age pensions (1889). But even these measures were not enough to alienate the German workers from the Social Democratic Party, although it distracted them from revolutionary ways of solving social problems. However, Bismarck strongly opposed any version of legislation that would regulate the working conditions of workers.

During the reign of Wilhelm I and Frederick III, who ruled for no more than six months, not a single opposition group managed to shake Bismarck's position. The self-confident and ambitious Kaiser was disgusted by the secondary role, and at the next banquet in 1891 he declared: “There is only one master in the country - I, and I will not tolerate another.” Shortly before this, Wilhelm II made a hint about the desirability of Bismarck's resignation, whose application was submitted on March 18, 1890. A couple of days later, the resignation was accepted, Bismarck was granted the title of Duke of Lauenburg and awarded the rank of Colonel General of the Cavalry.

Having retired to Friedrichsruhe, Bismarck did not lose interest in political life. The newly appointed Reich Chancellor and Minister-President, Count Leo von Caprivi, was especially eloquently criticized by him. In Berlin in 1894, a meeting took place between the emperor and the already aging Bismarck, organized by Clovis Hohenlohe, Prince of Schillingfürst, Caprivi's successor. The entire German people took part in the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the “Iron Chancellor” in 1895. In 1896, Prince Otto von Bismarck had the opportunity to attend the coronation of Russian Emperor Nicholas II. Death overtook the “Iron Chancellor” on July 30, 1898 at his Friedrichsruhe estate, where he was buried.

In 1838 he entered military service.

In 1839, after the death of his mother, he left the service and was involved in managing the family estates in Pomerania.

After his father's death in 1845, the family property was divided and Bismarck received the estates of Schönhausen and Kniephof in Pomerania.

In 1847-1848 - deputy of the first and second United Landtags (parliament) of Prussia, during the revolution of 1848 he advocated the armed suppression of unrest.

Bismarck became known for his conservative stance during the constitutional struggle in Prussia in 1848-1850.

Opposing the liberals, he contributed to the creation of various political organizations and newspapers, including the New Prussian Newspaper (Neue Preussische Zeitung, 1848). One of the organizers of the Prussian Conservative Party.

He was a member of the lower house of the Prussian parliament in 1849 and the Erfurt parliament in 1850.

In 1851-1859 - representative of Prussia in the Union Diet in Frankfurt am Main.

From 1859 to 1862, Bismarck was Prussia's envoy to Russia.

In March - September 1962 - Prussian envoy to France.

In September 1862, during the constitutional conflict between the Prussian royalty and the liberal majority of the Prussian Landtag, Bismarck was called by King William I to head the Prussian government, and in October of the same year became Minister-President and Foreign Minister of Prussia. He persistently defended the rights of the crown and achieved a resolution of the conflict in its favor. In the 1860s, he carried out military reform in the country and significantly strengthened the army.

Under the leadership of Bismarck, the unification of Germany was carried out through a “revolution from above” as a result of three victorious wars of Prussia: in 1864, together with Austria against Denmark, in 1866 - against Austria, in 1870-1871 - against France.

After the formation of the North German Confederation in 1867, Bismarck became Chancellor. In the German Empire proclaimed on January 18, 1871, he received the highest government post of Imperial Chancellor, becoming the first Reich Chancellor. In accordance with the constitution of 1871, Bismarck received virtually unlimited power. At the same time, he retained the post of Prussian Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Bismarck carried out reforms of German law, government and finance. In 1872-1875, on the initiative and under pressure from Bismarck, laws were passed against the Catholic Church to deprive the clergy of the right to supervise schools, to prohibit the Jesuit order in Germany, to compulsory civil marriage, to abolish articles of the constitution that provided for the autonomy of the church, etc. These The measures seriously limited the rights of the Catholic clergy. Attempts at disobedience led to reprisals.

In 1878, Bismarck passed through the Reichstag an “exceptional law” against socialists, prohibiting the activities of social democratic organizations. He mercilessly persecuted any manifestation of political opposition, for which he was nicknamed the “Iron Chancellor.”

In 1881-1889, Bismarck passed “social laws” (on insurance of workers in case of illness and injury, on old-age and disability pensions), which laid the foundations for social insurance of workers. At the same time, he demanded a tightening of anti-labor policies and during the 1880s successfully sought an extension of the “exceptional law.”

Bismarck built his foreign policy based on the situation that developed in 1871 after the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War and the seizure of Alsace and Lorraine by Germany, contributed to the diplomatic isolation of the French Republic and sought to prevent the formation of any coalition that threatened German hegemony. Fearing a conflict with Russia and wanting to avoid a war on two fronts, Bismarck supported the creation of the Russian-Austro-German agreement (1873) “The Alliance of the Three Emperors”, and also concluded a “reinsurance agreement” with Russia in 1887. At the same time, in 1879, on his initiative, an agreement on an alliance with Austria-Hungary was concluded, and in 1882 - a Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy), directed against France and Russia and marking the beginning of the split of Europe into two hostile coalitions. The German Empire became one of the leaders in international politics. Russia's refusal to renew the "reinsurance treaty" at the beginning of 1890 was a serious setback for the Chancellor, as was the failure of his plan to turn the "exceptional law" against the socialists into a permanent one. In January 1890, the Reichstag refused to renew it.

In March 1890, Bismarck was dismissed from his post as Reich Chancellor and Prussian Prime Minister as a result of contradictions with the new Emperor Wilhelm II and with the military command on foreign and colonial policy and on labor issues. He received the title of Duke of Lauenburg, but refused it.

Bismarck spent the last eight years of his life on his estate Friedrichsruhe. In 1891 he was elected to the Reichstag from Hanover, but never took his seat there, and two years later he refused to stand for re-election.

Since 1847, Bismarck was married to Johanna von Puttkamer (died 1894). The couple had three children - daughter Marie (1848-1926) and two sons - Herbert (1849-1904) and Wilhelm (1852-1901).

(Additional

The Prussian government eventually obtained from parliament the opportunity to implement the policy of its prime minister, Bismarck, aimed at ensuring Prussian hegemony in German affairs. This was also facilitated by the circumstances that arose in the international arena in the early 60s.

It was precisely at this time that a cooling began between France and Russia, since the French government, contrary to its obligations, did not raise the issue of revising the articles of the Treaty of Paris of 1856, which were unfavorable and humiliating for Russia after the defeat in the Crimean War. At the same time, due to the struggle for colonies, deterioration of relations between Russia, Great Britain and France. Mutual contradictions diverted the attention of the largest European powers from Prussia, which created a favorable environment for the implementation of the policy of Prussian Junkerism.

Given the great international influence in the Russian region, Bismarck set as his goal the improvement of Prussian-Russian relations. During the Polish uprising in 1863, he proposed to Alexander II a draft agreement on the joint struggle of Russia and Prussia against the Polish rebels. Such an agreement was concluded in February 1863 (the so-called Alvensleben Convention). Although it remained unratified and was not implemented in practice, its signing contributed to the improvement of relations between Prussia and Russia. At the same time, the contradictions between Great Britain and France, on the one hand, and Russia, on the other, became heated. In addition, the first, in connection with the American Civil War, were busy with American affairs.

Bismarck took advantage of these contradictions among the European powers, primarily to tear away Schleswig and Holstein, which belonged to Denmark, from Denmark. These two provinces, located at the junction between the Baltic and North Seas, have long attracted the German military and the bourgeoisie with their advantageous economic and strategic position. A significant part of the population of these provinces was of German origin and gravitated toward Germany, which Bismarck also exploited.

In November 1863, the Danish king Frederick VII died and his heir Christian IX ascended the throne. Bismarck decided to use this moment to attack Denmark. Taking advantage of the good disposition of the Russian Emperor (an important circumstance was the fact that Tsar Alexander II was the nephew of the Prussian King William 1) and having agreed with the Emperor of Austria Franz Joseph, the Prime Minister of Prussia began to look for a reason to declare war.

The reason was the new Danish constitution, which infringed on the rights of Schleswig. In January 1864, Prussian troops, together with Austrian troops, attacked Denmark. The war lasted 4 months: such a small and weak country as Denmark, from which both Great Britain and France turned their backs at that moment, was unable to resist two strong opponents. By the peace treaty Denmark was forced to give up Schleswig and Holstein; Schleswig with the seaport of Kiel came under the control of Prussia, Holstein - Austria. Denmark retained the small territory of Lauenburg, which a year later for 2.5 million thalers in gold became the final possession of Prussia, which played an important role in subsequent events.

Having successfully completed the war with Denmark, Prussia immediately began to prepare for war against its recent ally, Austria, in order to weaken it and thus eliminate its influence in Germany. The Prussian General Staff, under the leadership of General Helmuth Karl von Moltke, and the War Ministry, headed by General von Rosn, were actively developing plans for the decisive battle.

At the same time, Bismarck waged an active diplomatic war against Austria, aimed at provoking a conflict with it and at the same time ensuring the neutrality of the great powers - Russia, France and Great Britain. Prussian diplomacy achieved success in this. The neutrality of Tsarist Russia in the war between Prussia and Austria turned out to be possible due to the deterioration of Austro-Russian relations; the tsar could not forgive Austria for its policies during the Crimean War of 1853 - 1856. Bismarck achieved the neutrality of Napoleon III with the help of vague promises of compensation in Europe (to which the Emperor of France still did not agree). Britain was caught up in a diplomatic struggle with France. Bismarck also managed to secure an alliance with Italy: the latter hoped to take Venice from Austria.

To ensure that the great powers (primarily France) did not have time to intervene in the conflict, Bismarck developed a plan for a lightning war with Austria. This plan was as follows: Prussian troops defeat the main forces of the enemy in one, maximum two battles, and, without putting forward any demands for the seizure of Austrian territories, they seek the main thing from the Austrian emperor - so that he refuses to interfere in German affairs and does not interfere with the transformation of the powerless German Empire. union into a new union of German states without Austria under Prussian hegemony.

As a pretext for war, Bismarck chose the issue of the situation in the Duchy of Holstein. Having found fault with the actions of the Austrian governor, Bismarck brought Prussian troops into the duchy. Austria, due to the remoteness of Holstein, could not transport its troops there and submitted a proposal to the all-German parliament, sitting in Frankfurt, to condemn Prussia for aggression. The Austrian proposal was also supported by a number of other German states: Bavaria, Saxony, Württemberg, Hanover, Baden. Bismarck's crude provocative policy set them against Prussia; the great-power plans of the Prussian military clique frightened them. The Prussian prime minister was accused of provoking a fratricidal war.

Despite everything, Bismarck continued to pursue his policy. June 17, 1866 war began. Prussian troops invaded the Czech lands of Austria. At the same time, Italy moved against Austria in the south. The Austrian command was forced to divide its forces. An army of 75 thousand was moved against the Italians, and 283 thousand people were deployed against the Prussians. The Prussian army numbered 254 thousand people, but was much better armed than the Austrian one; in particular, it had the most advanced needle gun for that time, loaded from the breech. Despite the significant numerical superiority and good weapons, the Italian army was defeated at the first meeting with the Austrians.

Bismarck found himself in a difficult position, because conflicts over the declaration of war had not been resolved between him, the Landtag and the king. Bismarck's position and the outcome of the entire war were saved by the talented strategist General Moltke, who commanded the Prussian army. On July 3, in the decisive battle of Sadovaya (near Königgrätz), the Austrians suffered a severe defeat and were forced to retreat.

In the circles of Prussian militarists, intoxicated by the victory, a plan arose to continue the war until the final defeat of Austria. They demanded that the Prussian army triumphantly enter Vienna, where Prussia would dictate peace terms to defeated Austria, providing for the separation of a number of territories from it. Bismarck strongly opposed this. He had serious reasons for this: two days after the Battle of Sadovaya, the government of Napoleon III, greatly alarmed by the unforeseen victories of Prussia, offered its peaceful mediation. Bismarck considered the danger of immediate armed intervention by France on the side of Austria, which could radically change the existing balance of forces; in addition, Bismarck's calculations did not include excessive weakening of Austria, since he intended to get closer to her in the future. Based on these considerations, Bismarck insisted on a speedy conclusion of peace.

On August 23, 1866, a peace treaty was signed between Prussia and Austria. Bismarck won another victory - Austria had to renounce its claims to a leading role in German affairs and withdraw from the German Confederation. Four German states that fought on the side of Austria - the kingdom of Hanover, the Electorate of Hesse-Kassel, the Duchy of Nassau and the city of Frankfurt am Main - were included in Prussia, and thus the stripes that separated the western and eastern possessions of the Prussian monarchy were eliminated. Austria also had to give Venice to Italy. New Italian attempts at Trieste and Triente failed.

5. North German Confederation

After new territorial conquests, Prussia became the largest German state with a population of 24 million people. Bismarck's government achieved the creation of the North German Confederation, which included 22 German states located north of the Main River. The Constitution of the North German Confederation, adopted in April 1867, legally consolidated Prussian hegemony in German territories. The Prussian king became the head of the North German Confederation. He had the supreme command of the armed forces of the union. In the Federal Council, which included representatives of the governments of all allied states, Prussia also occupied a dominant position.

Prussian Minister-President Bismarck became the Allied Chancellor. The Prussian General Staff actually became the highest military body of the entire North German Confederation. The all-Union parliament - the Reichstag - was to hold elections on the basis of universal (for men over 21 years of age) and direct (but not secret) voting, the majority of seats belonged to deputies from Prussia. However, the Reichstag enjoyed only minor political influence, since its decisions were not valid without the approval of the Federal Council, and, according to the law, the Bismarck government was not accountable to the Reichstag.

After the end of the Austro-Prussian War, Bavaria, Bürttemberg, Baden and Hesse-Darmstadt were forced to conclude agreements with Prussia to transfer the armed forces of these four southern German states under the control of the Prussian general staff.

Thus, Bismarck, having achieved the creation of the North German Confederation, in which leadership indisputably belonged to Prussia, prepared Germany for a new war with France for the final completion of its unification.

The Franco-Prussian War was the result of the imperial policy of the moribund French Second Empire and the new aggressive state - Prussia, which wanted to assert its dominance in the center of Europe. The French ruling circles hoped, as a result of the war with Prussia, to prevent the unification of Germany, in which they saw a direct threat to the predominant position of France on the European continent, and, moreover, to seize the left bank of the Rhine, which had long been the object of desire of French capitalists. The French Emperor Napoleon III, in a victorious war, also sought a way out of a deep internal political crisis, which in the late 60s assumed a threatening character for his empire. The favorable outcome of the war, according to the calculations of Napoleon III, was supposed to strengthen the international position of the Second Empire, which had been greatly shaken in the 60s.

The Junkers and the major military industrialists of Prussia, for their part, sought war. They hoped, by defeating France, to weaken it, in particular, to capture the iron-rich and strategically important French provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. Bismarck, who already considered a war with France inevitable since 1866, was looking only for a favorable reason to enter into it: he wanted France, and not Prussia, to be the aggressive party that declared war. In this case, it would be possible to provoke a nationwide movement in the German states to accelerate the complete unification of Germany and thereby facilitate the transformation of the temporary North German Confederation into a more powerful centralized state - the German Empire under the leadership of Prussia.

Bismarck's reforms. The political weakness of the German bourgeoisie was reflected in the fact that the reunification of Germany took place not through a revolution destroying the remnants of feudalism, but through counter-revolutionary methods, that is, with the preservation of the dominance of obsolete classes and all the “Gothic” rubbish of feudal-absolutist statehood. For twenty years after the reunification, Bismarck was the living expression of the duality created and the contradictions that resulted from it. More connected in his class interests with the past of Germany than with its future, he, however, strove, to the best of his understanding, to satisfy the basic economic needs of the bourgeoisie. At first, he became close to the national liberals, or rather, he imperiously led them along, often, however, encountering resistance on their part, but easily overcoming it with combinations of an intra- and extra-parliamentary nature.

The first half of the 70s was the time when the National Liberals reached the peak of influence possible for them, having 152 representatives in the Reichstag of 1874, that is, more than any other party during the entire existence of the Reichstag. During this particular period, a unified monetary circulation system was established and a gold currency was introduced, and major steps were taken towards creating a unified law. Germany received almost uniform criminal and commercial law (the imperial Civil Code was introduced only in 1900). In 1874, the imperial press law eliminated the remaining restrictions on the press from the Middle Ages, although it introduced severe judicial penalties for anti-government.

substantive speeches. Among local events, it is worth noting the reform of local government carried out by Bismarck in 1872 in the eastern provinces of Prussia. In each province, which was made into districts, elected district assemblies were established. However, the police power of the landowner in the district, which had previously been a feudal privilege, was essentially preserved, since within the district the duties of police chiefs were borne free of charge by persons appointed by the king, always from local landowners. Moreover, large estates formed independent districts, where the landowner, with the consent of the head of the district (landrat), himself was the foreman or appointed the foreman.

“Kulturkampf”. The steps taken by Bismarck towards imperial unity strengthened not the German, but the Prussian-German Empire and thereby promised to perpetuate the hegemony of Prussia, painful for all non-Prussians. These events were supposed to cause the strengthening and unity of all anti-government elements, no matter how varied they were. And “these motley elements found a common banner in ultramontanism”1. On the one hand, the imperial government in the person of Bismarck was ready to hate any force that seemed to it too independent and dared to compete with it, and the Catholic Church in Germany, inspired by the warlike plans of the Pope (Pius IX), threatened to become such, and on the other hand, everything that was centrifugal in Germany, everything suppressed and insulted by Prussia in its national, mainly, dignity, everything opposed to Prussianism, began to group around the Catholic Church, whose interests were expressed in 1870.

It became, as we already know, a party of the center, always, however, strictly and purely Catholic in its composition. It was not for nothing that the leader of the party was Windhorst - the leader of the Hanoverian Welfs, especially and demonstratively irreconcilable antagonists of Prussia. Bismarck without hesitation entered into battle with the center, having on his side the liberal factions of the Reichstag, and passed a number of anti-clerical laws, of which the most important was the law on the transfer of civil registration to secular officials and on compulsory civil marriage (1875). Since the clergy, under direct orders from Rome, refused to obey these laws, the government unleashed a hail of administrative repression on the rebellious priests and laity. All this, however, turned out to be completely futile. The sympathy and cooperation of numerous and varied opposition elements made the Catholic resistance very persistent and effective. Even conservative Protestant circles armed themselves against Bismarck, and were particularly dissatisfied with

favored by his alliance with the liberals and willingly portraying his struggle with the Catholic Church as an undermining of religious foundations in general. This struggle, nicknamed “Kulturkampf” by Bismarck’s supporters, ended, in essence, with the complete defeat of Bismarck. He himself admitted in a speech to the Prussian Diet in 1886 that his struggle with the Catholics was “a wild goose chase.” The “Iron Chancellor” had to make peace with the geese: some of the anti-clerical laws ceased to be applied, others were completely abolished later, and only the one just mentioned remained in force. Government persecution only strengthened the center party and for quite a long time forged it into the strongest and most persistent opposition, after the Social Democrats. Even in the Reichstag of 1912, the center remained the largest faction after the Social Democrats.

The collapse of the National Liberals. Having abandoned the “Kulturkampf,” Bismarck abandoned the National Liberals, who had already lost interest in him, and at the same time turned to an economic policy that the National Liberals could not approve: he stopped encouraging free trade and a kind of protectionism and began to patronize not so much industry as large land ownership. By increasing customs duties on consumer goods (tobacco, coffee, kerosene), he also wanted to increase the income of the imperial treasury and free it from the certain dependence in which it was in relation to the members of the Union. Conservatives and the center, backed by landowners and kulaks, sympathized with his endeavors with one reservation or another; the national liberals, since they represented the commercial bourgeoisie, were against it, and since they reflected the interests of industrialists, they were inclined to compromise. As a result, they, as we already know, split and from 1881 forever lost the importance of one of the leading parties in the Reichstag that they had until that time. But the collapse of the National Liberals, the only, strictly speaking, middle party of the Reichstag on which the government could rely for a long time, intensified the disintegration and discord that already reigned in the Reichstag, and most importantly, made the extreme factions the decisive force in parliamentary battles.

The Fall of Bismarck. It was after the “victory” over the National Liberals in the elections of 1881 that it became increasingly difficult for Bismarck to carry out his legislative measures through the Reichstag. The policy of maneuvering between classes and parties, the further, the more clearly, revealed its inconsistency. The conflict reached particular intensity in 1887, when the Reichstag refused to renew the law on a seven-year army contingent. After the dissolution of this Reichstag, Bismarck managed to create a coalition of National Liberals with both factions of conservatives in the elections - a “cartel”. In the new Reichstag, Bismarck had an obedient majority, and it was with

relying on this majority, he passed, among other things, his provocative “social laws” on compulsory insurance of workers, trying in this way to paralyze the influence of the Social Democrats, which was irresistibly growing in breadth and depth, despite the persecution of the government. But it was precisely this same Reichstag that inflicted a severe defeat on Bismarck, refusing him in 1890 to approve a new, even more cruel exceptional law and to extend the old law against socialists, which expired in the fall of 1890. In the same year, the powers of the Reichstag ended , and in the new elections the artificial combination of the cartel was upset. The right-wing parties were defeated. The Social Democrats immediately tripled the number of mandates. This was perhaps the most striking indicator of the bankruptcy of the government’s internal policy, and, therefore, Engels was right when he spoke of “the Social Democratic Party that overthrew Bismarck”1. In order to regain lost control in the new Reichstag, Bismarck, true to his method of unprincipled political tricks and behind-the-scenes inter-party machinations, turned his attention to the center, the most powerful faction of the Reichstag, and had a secret meeting with Windhorst. This served as a pretext for a sharp clash between him and William II, who had recently ascended the throne. Times and circumstances had changed to such an extent for the old chancellor that his request for resignation was, contrary to all his expectations, accepted.

Strengthening monopoly capital. Times really changed so quickly and radically that statesmen with a broader outlook than Bismarck did not have time to notice and note the changes that were taking place. The forces of industrial development emerged at the end of the century with overwhelming energy. Coal, which was available in abundance in Germany even before the territorial acquisitions as a result of the victory over France, iron, received by Germany together with Alsace-Lorraine, and finally, French billions that poured into the country's economy like a golden stream - all this, hand in hand with political factors, which were the reunification of Germany and the reforms that followed, caused an exceptional growth of German industry. In its development, Germany clearly overtook the oldest industrial country - England - and was far ahead of it in the concentration and centralization of capital. Over the twenty years from 1890 to 1910, Germany consistently outpaced England in the production and consumption of ore and coal, and in the production of iron, steel and cast iron. Heavy industry began to unconditionally dominate the industrial economy of Germany. Mechanical engineering has made unusually rapid strides. At the same time, the government's protectionist policy contributed to the growth of all kinds of monopolies, the main form of which was the cartel. Cartelization of industry began already in the late 70s and by the end of the century the number of cartels had grown significantly, continuing to increase further. “The number of cartels in Germany was estimated at approximately 250 in 1896 and 385 in 1905, with the participation of about 12 thousand establishments.” This, in turn, made it easier for banking capital to penetrate into the cartelized industry from top to bottom: at the beginning of the 20th century. financial capital laid its hand on the entire domestic and foreign policy of Germany.

Activation of German imperialism. Such economic upheavals caused major shifts in class relations. While the petty junkers continued to degenerate and declass, following the forecast set for them by Engels in the 80s, the landowner magnates, who had previously, as we noted, found common ground with large-scale industry, were now increasingly united with the industrial kings. They willingly set up industrial enterprises on their lands, even more willingly became participants in capitalist concerns, and Wilhelm II himself did not at all disdain handouts of this kind from the cannon king Krupp. Both landowners and monopoly capital turned out to be interested in turning Germany onto the path of active colonial policy. At one time, Bismarck declared: “I don’t want colonies. They are only suitable for sinecures.” Although ten years later he made some attempts to rebuild in this direction and supported and rounded out the land acquisitions of German entrepreneurs in Africa, which formed the core of German South-West Africa and German East Africa, neither he nor his successor Caprivi understood the real meaning of colonial expansion. who gave Zanzibar to England in exchange for Heligoland and argued that there was nothing worse than receiving all of Africa as a gift. This point of view then met with sharp opposition among some sections of the Junkers and the big bourgeoisie, who demanded broad colonial expansion. In 1891, the General German Confederation was created, which over time gained great influence under the name of the Pan-German Confederation. Pan-Germanists placed increasing emphasis on promoting Germany's seizure of a number of lands in Europe itself, describing these lands as German and including Austria, Denmark, Holland, part of Switzerland and Belgium, and the Baltic possessions of Russia. They made plans for a long advance to the East (“Drang nach Osten!”). The idea of ​​race

The division of Russia played an ever-increasing role in these plans. A significant trend in pan-Germanism was directed against England, calling for all efforts to be concentrated against it in order to achieve a redistribution of the colonies. Finally, under Chancellor Hohenlohe (1894-1900), a sharp turn in German foreign policy took place, and it rapidly moved towards a predatory imperialist policy. The matter is not limited to land seizures on the western and eastern coasts of Africa, the lease of Kiao-Chao, which opened the way for German capital to the natural riches of the Shandong Peninsula, and the acquisition of the Mariana, Caroline and Marechal islands, which strengthened German positions on the approaches to the Asian mainland. Germany is turning its gaze to the Middle East, to Turkey, intending to penetrate along the paths of economic and political subjugation of Turkey into Asia Minor, Syria, and Mesopotamia, where the German imperialists were irresistibly attracted to deposits of oil and rare metals and inexhaustible sources of agricultural raw materials.

From that time on, the imperialist policy of Hohenzollern Germany became more and more energetic. The landowner magnates are turning into the militant vanguard of finance capital and are increasingly drawing it towards unbridled aggression, which, it must be said, it resists very little. The impatient pressure of the Junker reaction with its admiration for force, with its cult of soldiery, with contempt for weak nations, with the firm conviction that military violence is the quickest and surest creator of “national wealth”, becomes the main driver of German politics.

There is no doubt that the immediate foundations of Hitlerism, as an integral system with its own domestic and foreign policy, were already laid in the Kaiser’s Germany, in order to receive the most complete and complete expression after the First World War.

Only the proletariat could resist this fatal craving for reaction within and military explosions without. But the leaders of Social Democracy did everything in their power to disorient, split, and disarm him. And they achieved their goal

Reaction along the entire line. In full accordance with the new and extremely energetic imperialist policy, accompanied, of course, by a feverish increase in armaments (especially naval ones), Germany's internal policy is becoming more and more reactionary every year. Caprivi, who replaced Bismarck, still relied for some time on the national liberals and the center and was forced to make certain concessions to the bourgeoisie, as well as carry out some labor protection measures (the law on Sunday rest for workers and on the 11-hour maximum working day for women) . But during Hohenlohe’s chancellorship, the Junker magnates, supported by heavy industry, gain the upper hand, and in the Reichstag the tone is set by conservatives in alliance with the center, followed by national liberals who have completely lost all independence.

But the conservatives were numerically weak, the national liberals were disintegrating and falling apart, and the government found itself in a rather unpleasant dependence on the center, unpleasant because the center, which was under pressure from the petty-bourgeois part of its voters, was forced from time to time to make oppositional gestures: so, it failed in 1893, as we already know, the military law, in 1895 did the same with a bill that seemed to resurrect the exceptional law against socialists (Umsturzvorlage), and in 1900 with a law that essentially destroyed freedom of association. But this was nothing more than a regurgitation of the former opposition of the center: it increasingly clearly turned to the right, towards the insolent reaction, and during the first decade of the 20th century. provided Chancellor Bülow (1900-1909) who succeeded Hohenlohe with invaluable services in carrying out reactionary military and financial bills. It was the center, for example, that authored the hypocritical law, the official purpose of which was to combat crimes against morality in the press and in art, but which actually opened the way for extremely picky political censorship (1900). This was the time of a widespread attack on the already insignificant political rights of workers, when strikers were subjected to all kinds of repression on the basis of a “state of siege” imposed here and there, when strikebreakers and provocateurs were provided with police and court protection, when censorship was rampant, when the indigenous population in Alsace-Lorraine and in the Polish provinces was subjected to violent persecution. Under Hohenlohe, and especially under Bülow, the oppression of the Polish population in Poznan and Upper Silesia increased enormously. The Germanizers openly and almost officially set as their goal the Germanization of Polish lands and the Polish population, and the “Gakatists” (after the initials of the three leaders of the Germanizer Union) were especially rampant. The Poles resisted with all the means available to them, among other things, the school strikes that were sensational in their time. However, in the Reichstag, the Polish National Party (“Kolo”) for a long time followed the lead of the center and only a few years before the First World War more or less decisively went into opposition.

Party coalitions in the Reichstag. Supporting Bülow's reactionary policies, the center demanded handouts and handouts for its services. The government, however, did not always satisfy his demands, and just in 1906, when it refused departmental transfers and appointments that the leaders of the center had long pestered, the latter united with the Social Democrats and refused the government loans to suppress the Hottentot uprising (Herero) in the African possessions of Germany. Bülow took advantage of this to dissolve the Reichstag and try to get rid of the center. The new elections, however, even strengthened the center (105 seats instead of 100), but they severely hit the Social Democrats, whom Bülow both feared and hated. Numerous petty-bourgeois voters, who usually gave their votes to the Social Democrats, were scattered during this election campaign by chauvinistic agitation and dizzying promises of the imperialists - they betrayed the Social Democrats, and they lost almost half of their mandates (38 out of 81). In the Reichstag of 1907, Bülow managed to unite conservatives, national liberals, and even freethinkers and even progressives in the so-called “Hottentot” bloc. It was impossible to demonstrate more clearly the pathetic decline of German liberalism in all its factions, trends and shades. Almost the only concession from the reaction to its liberal collaborators was the new law on unions and meetings (1908), which, however, was mutilated by amendments by conservatives. The cooperation of the bloc with the government, however, turned out to be fragile, and when the question of an inheritance tax arose as one of the sources of covering new naval expenses, the conservatives, together with the center, rejected such an attack on the landlords’ pockets, and the “Hottentot” bloc collapsed. Bülow paid for this failure with his chancellorship.

The new Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg (1909-1917) inherited the fragments of the bloc in the form of an alliance of the center with both factions of conservatives, known as the “blue-black” (189 mandates in total). Attracting to itself, if necessary, the Black Hundreds from the Christian Social Party (16 mandates) or the like, the black-blue bloc firmly dominated for about three years, and this dominance was marked by a number of new indirect taxes and new legislative persecution of the proletariat.

The struggle for reform in Prussia and Alsace-Lorraine. However, the fighting spirit of the proletariat is clearly growing and is reflected, for example, in the energetic struggle for the reform of suffrage in Prussia. Here the famous three-class system continued to serve as a stronghold of the political dominance of the farmers and moneybags. Bethmann-Hollweg tried to update this electoral system with some amendments, but did not satisfy either the right or the left, and the bill he submitted to the Prussian Landtag was rejected (1910). Berlin workers reacted to Bethmann-Hollweg's reforms with violent mass demonstrations. A new attempt at electoral reform, coming in 1912 from the free-thinking faction of the Landtag, turned out to be equally unsuccessful.

on foot. The inveterate reactionary nature of the Prussian state regime was depicted especially clearly against the background of the comparative successes of the movement for electoral reform in Southern Germany: in the period 1904-1911. universal suffrage was introduced in Bavaria, Württemberg and Hesse. However, in Saxony around the same period, suffrage was significantly deteriorated out of fear of the successes of the Saxon Social Democrats.

At the end of 1910, the Reichstag, under strong pressure from the Social Democrats, finally adopted a law on the autonomy of Alsace-Lorraine: a provincial bicameral Landtag was established, the lower house of which was elected through universal suffrage; at the same time, Alsace-Lorraine received representation in the Bundesrat. This whole “constitution” did not in the least prevent the manifestations of the wildest tyranny in Alsace-Lorraine on the part of the German military and administration. As before, as 40 years ago, exclusive laws prevailed here in one form or another, regulating in their own way the rights of the press, freedom of assembly and unions, etc. When, in 1913, in the Alsatian city of Tsarben (Saverne), the Prussian lieutenant , the living embodiment of the stupid and base all-German martinet, allowed himself a rude and stupid mockery of the local population, Lenin rightly noted the symptomatic significance of this incident: in Zabern “the true order of Germany, the rule of the saber of the Prussian semi-feudal landowner, intensified and came to light”1. Didn’t the commander of the regiment in which the distinguished lieutenant belonged receive demonstrative approval from the Prussian Crown Prince? Didn’t William II himself, in his inner essence the same limited and narcissistic Prussian lieutenant, threaten even before the Alsace-Loringia incident that he would simply take away her constitution, which had just been granted?

Electoral victory for the Social Democrats. During the relatively short period of its rule, the black-blue bloc thoroughly alienated the most diverse circles of voters. Already in the last two years of the existence of the Reichstag (1910-1911), the Social Democrats acquired 10 new mandates in by-elections. It is not surprising that the elections of 1912 were marked by significant failures of the clerical-landowner reaction. The Conservatives lost 26 mandates, the center paid 14, the Christian Socialists - 13, even the National Liberals lost 9 mandates. On the contrary, the Social Democrats almost tripled the number of their mandates compared to the last elections (110 instead of 43) and immediately took the line of the strongest party in the Reichstag.

Reformism and opportunism of social democracy. Thus, the Social Democrats with the Progressives and National Liberals, with the support of the national parties, could have a majority. But the fact is that not only the liberal factions turned out to be by this time, as indeed before, absolutely incapable of stable opposition to the government - the infection of opportunism and conciliatory flabbiness began to penetrate into the top of the Social Democratic Party. After the fall of the law against socialists, this began to affect both theoretically and practically. The Erfurt program, which replaced the Gotha program in 1891, was, of course, a step forward compared to that one, but it also made a major mistake, not only by not declaring the dictatorship of the proletariat as the ultimate goal of the class struggle, but also by not mentioning the dictatorship of the proletariat in general. This mistake was what Engels had in mind when he ridiculed the “peace-loving opportunism and the peaceful-calm-free-cheerful” “ingrowth” of the old swinishness into “socialist society.” He pointed to this in his criticism of the Erfurt program, demanding recognition of the inevitability and necessity of a violent proletarian revolution.

The departure from revolutionary ideals, the closer to the First World War, became more and more noticeable among the leaders of German Social Democracy and became especially striking due to the fact that the Russian Revolution of 1905 contributed to a significant increase in the revolutionary activity of the German proletariat, showing it, among other things, a concrete example of the great revolutionary significance of the general strike. Although the party leadership officially condemned the attempts of renegades like Bernstein to push the German workers away from the path of class struggle bequeathed by Marx and Engels, revisionism was practically making great strides in social democracy and putting its stamp on the tactics of the leaders. The bias towards reformism and compromise with the bourgeoisie is becoming increasingly evident, and parliamentary struggle has begun to occupy more and more space in the work of the party to the detriment of direct and immediate mass revolutionary struggle. The resistance that the old leaders of the party, and among them Liebknecht and Bebel, gave to this trend was not always sufficient, as Lenin pointed out many times in his tireless and consistent struggle against opportunism and reformism in the Second International in general and in German Social Democracy, in particular. For German Social Democracy turned out to be the leading party of the Second International and, more than others, was responsible for the mistakes, delusions, and finally, the betrayal of the Second International. At one time, German social democracy did a lot to organize and educate the proletariat in an atmosphere of more or less peaceful development. But when, by the end of the 19th century. peaceful development gave way to an era of class battles and civil wars of the proletariat, German Social Democracy, and with it the Second International, found themselves in the rearguard of the labor movement, frantically clinging to old methods of struggle and slowing down revolutionary development.

The war of 1914 and the situation within the Social Democratic Party. In this situation, the leaders of Social Democracy did not want and were unable to organize a real resistance to the imperialist reaction. When the war began, they became servants of this reaction, diligently helping the government and capitalists in establishing and maintaining a military regime within the country, which for the workers turned into military hard labor at the front or in enterprises. In December 1914, only Karl Liebknecht in the Reichstag parliamentary faction openly expressed his negative attitude towards the war, refusing to vote for war loans. The gradually increasing resistance of the working masses was expressed, among other things, in the fact that in 1915 the left Social Democrats (Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, Franz Mehring and others) formed a group that soon received the name “Spartak”.

Treason of Social Democratic leaders. The party leaders, meanwhile, did not yawn and, in their renegadeism, slid further and further. In accordance with the increasingly complex political situation, the ruling classes of Germany made increasingly serious demands on them, and they strived to rise to the occasion of their tasks. Under the blows of military defeats, the foundations of the Hohenzollern monarchy were shaken, the masses of the people were revolutionized. After the February Revolution of 1917, the German bourgeoisie saw that the danger of military defeat was joined by the even more threatening danger of a revolutionary explosion. In the Reichstag, under the leadership of the left wing of the center, a majority began to crystallize, ready to abandon the aggressive goals of the war. But the bank and the landowners did not give up yet. Bethmann-Hollweg, a strong supporter of such a refusal, resigned (July 1917). The agrarian Michaelis was appointed chancellor and accepted this refusal with various reservations. In such a situation, the bourgeoisie entrusted the leaders of Social Democracy with the responsibility of restraining the masses from a revolutionary uprising that was increasingly brewing. In 1917, the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany was formed, the direct purpose of which was to stage an imaginary opposition to the leadership of the Social Democratic Party and with demagogic talk to lure into its ranks workers who had already realized the betrayal of the Social Democratic elite, but were not yet aware of it that the Independent Social Democratic Party is nothing more than an expository of the Social Democratic Party. The independent movement took place under the leadership of Kautsky, who made every effort to emasculate and neutralize this movement and neutralize the energy of the workers who joined it.

The death throes of the regime. But the efforts of the faithful servants of the bourgeoisie were in vain: the Great October Socialist Revolution inflamed the German workers and soldiers with revolutionary enthusiasm. Then the leaders of Social Democracy, “loyal without flattery,” consistent in their treachery to the end, did not stop even before exposing their own backs to a monarchy that was threatening to collapse, a monarchy that had covered itself with shame, guilty of countless crimes against the working class, generously stained people's blood. The fact is that at the end of December 1917, Wilhelm I, who so often and so cheekily declared his contempt for parliamentarism, felt sympathy for him, finding himself in trouble, and addressed Chancellor Hertling, one of the leaders of the center who replaced On November 1, 1917, Michaelis announced his desire to attract the German people to a more active participation in determining the fate of the fatherland than before. However, this dubious love of the people was kept under wraps until the very moment when the German military clique lost its last hope for a turnaround in military fortunes. Only on October 1, 1918, the new Imperial Chancellor, Prince Max of Baden, began to urgently create democracy and parliamentarism in Germany, with the obligatory preservation of the Hohenzollern dynasty and all, of course, other dynasties. It was then that the leaders of Social Democracy offered their services, and a number of these leaders (among them Scheidemann) became part of the government formed by the prince. New constitutional laws were published (October 28, 1918), amending the Constitution of the German Empire. Amendment to Art. 15 of the Constitution stipulated that the Imperial Chancellor needed the confidence of the Reichstag and was responsible to the Bundesrat and the Reichstag. Of lesser importance was the amendment to Art. 11, which required the consent of the Reichstag and Bundesrat to declare war and conclude international treaties. But these changes could not save the empire.

Fall of the monarchy. All heroic measures were in vain. A few days later, workers, soldiers and sailors began to capture one city after another. On November 9, Max Badensky announced the abdication of the Kaiser and transferred the position of Imperial Chancellor to the Social Democrat Ebert. On the same day, in the face of the spontaneously emerging Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, Scheidemann hastened to declare a republic.

OTHER SUFFIX

Suffix(from lat.suffixus"attached") in linguistics- morpheme, an inflected part of a word, usually located after the root. In Russian, the transfer of a word from one part of speech to another is usually carried out using a suffix.

I remember from my school grammar course that a word consists of a prefix, a root, a suffix and an ending. My Russian language teacher Olga Gavrilovna always emphasized the lexical meaning of the root in a word. It was hard for a 6th grade student to disagree with this. Compared to the root, the suffix made a pale impression, but sometimes I was simply amazed at how this simple particle could change everything.

For example, if you compare the words “social” and “socialist”, you can immediately come to the conclusion that they have a common root “social”, but different suffixes and endings. Social comes from the Latin socialis, which means public; associated with the lives and relationships of people in or to society. It would seem that if the root is common, then we are talking about, if not identical, then very similar concepts. In our case, with lexical proximity, these words carry completely different meanings. Obviously? But it turns out that this is not for everyone. Especially for my fellow citizens. In modern American political discourse, what can be called “thesis substitution” often occurs, when concepts are replaced, wittingly or unwittingly. In our case, conclusions are drawn that are based on lexical proximity, and not on semantic content.

Let's try to figure it out.

Subjunctive mood

For us, immigrants from the USSR, the concept of “socialism” and its derivative definition “socialist” are associated with very specific phenomena; memory gives them out instantly. Official Meetings. Queues, shortages. Slogans in white and red. Portraits of leaders. Elections without choice. History lessons, political economy, scientific communism. Dictatorship of the proletariat. Abolition of private property. Collectivization, industrialization. Holodomor. Dneproges. The enemy does not sleep. Gulag. Catch up and overtake. Five-year plan in three years. Cast iron per capita. Hipsters. Cult of personality. From each - according to his abilities... Virgin soil. The American—aka Israeli—military. “Let's bury America” - Khrushchev on the podium. An indestructible bloc of communists and non-party people... Complete it yourself.

The concept of “social” will be more difficult, but over the years of living in the United States, something has also become clearer. For example, who are “social workers” and what do they do... Well, if you take one small step, move from a “social worker” to a “welfare state”, then... here a hitch appears. Why? Quite possibly because the term “welfare state” appeared on German soil, not American soil.

It is commonly said that history does not know the subjunctive mood. In history there was only what happened. If something had been different, it would have happened. But there are exceptions to every rule. For example, an amazing experiment staged by history in Germany, when the answer to the insidious “if” was given.

In science, it is customary to determine the correctness of theoretical conclusions by comparing them with experimental results. For example, when during the research process the test substance is divided into two parts and subjected to different effects. Comparison of results allows you to confirm or refute theoretical premises and obtain objective, that is, experimentally confirmed conclusions.

This is approximately what History (the Almighty, the Heavenly Powers - substitute at your discretion) did when it divided one nation, in our case, the German one, into two parts. A socialist state, the GDR, was built in the east of the country. In the West - social, Germany. One state was the embodiment of the theoretical positions of the famous Germans Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Others are less famous, but also famous: Otto von Bismarck and Ludwig Erhard. In any case, both models of government were the fruits of the “gloomy German genius.”

Social issue

In the first decades of the 19th century, Europe was swept by the industrial revolution, which caused tectonic shifts in the social organization of society. Under the pressure of more profitable machine production, artisans went bankrupt and were left without a piece of bread. Their only option was to go to the factory, to work 14 hours a day and for pennies. The ranks of the hired labor force were also replenished by peasants freed from serfdom but deprived of property. They were all called proletarians because they had nothing but their children. How to overcome endlessly long working hours, inhumane working conditions and starvation wages? How to achieve living conditions worthy of humans? This was the main social question of the 19th century.

A little earlier, at the end of the 18th century, thanks to the Great French Revolution, the idea of ​​a liberal legal state was established in Europe. It protected individual human rights and freedoms from the arbitrariness of absolutism. At the same time, classical liberalism was not ready to answer the main social question of the time. He simply did not notice it, defining any form of social protest as a violation of public order, a riot. The authorities' response was appropriate...Under these conditions, the protest began to develop from the initially spontaneous (Luddites, for example) to a more meaningful and organized one. Over time, this movement took the form of the political movement of socialism.

In the German states, however, the first steps in the social sphere were taken at the official level already in the twenties of the 19th century. Sometimes they were stimulated by considerations far from social. For example, in Westphalia, child labor in factories was limited under the influence of a military report that appeared in 1828. There, the negative impact of work on the health of children was noted, which subsequently made them unsuitable for military service. Of course, nothing could be stronger than such an argument!

In 1845, Prussia adopted the “Regulations on Trades,” which obligated each assistant master to join the local social insurance fund and pay contributions. In 1849, a law was passed that also obliged employers to pay part of the contributions (up to half) for workers employed in their enterprises. These laws introduced for the first time the principle of joint participation of both workers and employers in the financing of social insurance. By the way, this principle still applies today.

But, by and large, these were half measures and the social tension caused in the German states by rapid industrialization grew. Revolutionary sentiments gradually matured; especially among the urban lower classes and workers, dissatisfied with rising food prices... In Europe, 1848-49 went down in history as the Spring of Nations, a time of revolutions that swept almost the entire continent. It is no coincidence that it was at this time that the concept of a fundamentally new, socialist state arose. On February 21, 1848, the Manifesto of the Communist Party by Marx and Engels was published in London. In chapter “II. Proletarians and Communists" presented a brief program for the transition from a capitalist social formation to a communist one, carried out by force - through the dictatorship of the proletariat. “The proletariat uses its political dominance in order to wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie step by step, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, that is, the proletariat organized as the ruling class, and to increase the sum of the productive forces as quickly as possible. This can, of course, happen at first only through despotic interference in property rights and in bourgeois relations of production...”

The violent path, the dictatorship of the proletariat, despotic intervention - the founders of socialism were consistent in their choice of means and methods for creating a bright proletarian future.

Bismarck's answer

Having received their theoretical basis, socialist movements began to grow and expand throughout Europe. These processes developed most actively in united Germany. From the point of view of the German elite, the internal danger, namely the socialist movement, became stronger than the external danger. On the initiative of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the Social Democratic Party was banned in 1878, as were its rallies. The socialists were deprived of a license for their publications... Perhaps in another country other leaders would have limited themselves to this, but not in Germany, and not Bismarck. Being a conservative and a staunch opponent of socialism, he understood one simple thing: social problems cannot be solved by force alone. If reforms from above are not carried out in time, they will follow from below. But already in the form of a revolution. This was one of the most important lessons of recent history, which the wise chancellor learned by heart. He could not allow such a development of events... Bismarck conceived his reforms as a means to transform the working class into a community of loyal to the state and conservative-minded German citizens.

On November 17, 1881, a message from the Kaiser was published, in which the right of workers to social protection was proclaimed. The monarch's declaration was implemented through three social insurance laws passed by Bismarck through the Reichstag: for sickness (1883); from accidents (1884); on disability and old age (1889). For example, the health insurance law, among other things, provided for the payment of sickness benefits from the third day onwards for a maximum of 13 weeks. If the illness was longer, then accident insurance came into force. The compensation was 2/3 of the average salary and began from the 14th week of illness. Responsibility for the payment of this compensation was assigned to associations of entrepreneurs based on cooperative principles ( Berufgenossenschaften).

The labor insurance measures developed by Bismarck far surpassed those adopted in other industrialized countries. These reforms, known as Bismarck's social laws, are still in effect today. They became fundamental to the creation of the German welfare state, and over time they were copied throughout Europe. It would seem a paradox that a Prussian Junker, a nationalist, a man of very right-wing views, proposed and implemented social reforms that really changed the life of a working person for the better. But if you think about it, the sense of responsibility for the fate of the people and the country, which distinguishes a true nationalist, could not help but lead Bismarck along this path.

Test time

...The Second World War, unleashed by the Nazis, brought unprecedented grief and suffering to millions of Europeans. Among those who became victims of the war were the German people. He had to pay the bills of the Nazis - nothing new, people always pay for the adventures of their rulers... The situation in the defeated country was very difficult. The Allies divided the country into various zones of occupation. In the East there was a Soviet zone where the communists were brought to power. They were led by Comintern veterans Wilhelm Pieck, Otto Grottewohl and Walter Ulbricht who arrived from Moscow. Under the leadership of the Kremlin, they immediately set about building socialist Germany... In the West, the American military administration was guided by the directive of the Joint Chiefs of Staff JCS 1067, which defined the goals of the occupation. In particular, it said: « It must be made clear to the Germans that Germany's ruthless prosecution of the war and the fanatical Nazi resistance destroyed the German economy and made chaos and suffering inevitable, and that the Germans cannot escape responsibility for what they have brought upon themselves... »

Germany lay in ruins, hundreds of thousands of refugees wandered throughout the country - from cities to villages and back. Plants and factories stood or were dismantled by the victors, apathy and depression reigned everywhere, the management apparatus did not work. The economy was represented by the black market. In the American zone, 12 out of 15 million were denazified - one tenth of one percent of the population was recognized as Nazis. It was necessary to clear the ruins of cities, feed the population, give them work and a roof over their heads. The nation needed new leaders who could lead the revival of Germany on a democratic basis. The Western Allies compiled a “White List for Germany” of Germans who had not tainted themselves with Nazi crimes. In politics, the choice fell on the mayor of Cologne, repressed by the Nazis, Konrad Adenauer, in economics - on Professor Ludwig Erhard.

Konrad Adenauer was a born leader; in an environment of post-war devastation, he created a new type of party - the Christian Democratic Union. In February 1947, at the founding congress in Ahlen, the CDU adopted a political program in which the main goal of the party was the welfare of the people, the rights and dignity of the citizen. Thus, defining a fundamentally new position for the German conservative movement... As for Ludwig Erhard, by the end of the war he was a recognized economist who, starting in 1943, worked on a project for economic reform necessary for the country after the fall of the Hitler regime. Well, he never doubted it... In September 1945, the American military administration appointed Erhard Minister of Economy of Bavaria, and in March 1948, manager of the Bisonia economy - the united American and British occupation zones.

In the very difficult conditions of the first post-war years, Adenauer and Erhard put forward the slogan: “Material well-being for everyone.” The slogan is beautiful, but how to implement it? How many wonderful slogans were proclaimed during the Soviet years, but in the end they all turned out to be a bluff. Well, at least: “Everything in the name of man, everything for the good of man.” Soviet people, standing in line for conditionally edible sausage, joked that the name of this man had finally become known - Leonid Ilyich... Being an economist, Erhard understood the complexity of fulfilling such a slogan. There is an inevitable objective contradiction between the market economy and social policy. The main law of the market is the desire for maximum profit, while financing social tasks involves deductions from income, that is, their reduction. The merit of Adenauer and Erhard was that, well understanding the nature of capitalism, they included the social component in the country's development program. They couldn’t imagine a new Germany otherwise...

The key to resolving this contradiction was to be the rapid economic development of the country. But how, on the basis of what? In Potsdam, the victorious powers decided that the industrial level of Germany should be no more than half of the level of 1938, for which they began to dismantle and remove the remaining factories. In the western zones this amounted to 8% of capacity, and in the Soviet zone 45%. Statisticians have calculated that the production capacity of the western occupation zones of Germany is enough to provide each German with one plate for five years, a pair of shoes for 10 years and one suit for 50 years. The situation was further complicated by the fact that out of the 47 million people who then made up the country’s population, 10 million were German refugees from the western regions of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Later they were joined by another 3 million people who arrived from the Soviet occupation zone. The famous publicist Gustav Stolper recalled: “...a morally destroyed nation without food and raw materials, without a functioning transport system and a currency of any value, a nation whose social structure was mass flight and expulsion, a country where hunger and fear killed hope.”

Erhard's reforms

Under these conditions, more and more Germans were inclined to think that only socialism could be a salvation from chaos... The United States could no longer remain idle, especially since in both Italy and France the communists were part of the government and enjoyed the trust and support of the masses... On June 5, 1947, speaking to Harvard students, American Secretary of State George Marshall proposed an economic program for the revival of Europe, which went down in history as the “Marshall Plan.” Very significant resources ($1.3 billion) were ready to be placed at the disposal of West Germany. And how to dispose of them? The question at that time was far from idle... In the western sector, the rules and laws of the mobilization economy, necessary for the Nazis to wage war, were still in effect. The Allies tried to stop the post-war chaos with more and more decrees added to the planning system of the Third Reich. And although this was of little use - rather, on the contrary - almost everyone agreed that only state management of the “scarcity economy” could save society from disaster.

It’s paradoxical, but true: in 1947-48, not only the Social Democrats and trade unions close to them, but also the CDU, led by the future Chancellor Adenauer, opposed the introduction of a market economy in West Germany (“Planning and management of the economy will be on a large scale and for a long time time")... The country needed comprehensive economic reform so that the American taxpayer's money could be earned with maximum return. This is precisely the reform that Erhard proposed. It consisted of:

• firstly, monetary reform,
• secondly, price reforms.

According to Erhard, a strong impulse was initially required to get things moving. This was supposed to be a monetary reform. It was developed by American specialists in close collaboration with a group of German experts led by Erhard. The goal of this reform was to get rid of the "overhang" of devalued money (Gelduberhang) and create a hard currency. Based on a decree of the military authorities, on the night of June 21, 1948, the old Reichsmarks were declared invalid and new money was introduced - German marks (DM). Each resident of the country received 40 new stamps (later another 20 were added to them). A new bank of issue, the Bank of the German Lands, was created and rules were developed to regulate its relations with private banks, for example, the amount of required cash reserves.

And the task of the price reform, which came into force three days after the monetary reform, was to abolish the “forced economy” created by the Nazis - (Zwangswirtschaft), the abolition of the administrative distribution of resources and price controls. The deregulation of prices and wages was carried out consistently and steadily. If the occupation authorities were largely responsible for the monetary reform, then the abolition of compulsory prices was entirely the brainchild of Ludwig Erhard and his economic management.

The effect of the reforms exceeded all expectations. Eyewitnesses to the events of those years, French economists Jacques Zuff and Andre Pierre wrote: “The black market suddenly disappeared. Shop windows were filled to capacity with goods, factory chimneys began to smoke, and trucks piled up on the streets. Everywhere the dead silence of the ruins gave way to the noise of construction sites. And no matter how surprising the scope of this rise was, its suddenness was even more surprising. It started in all areas. Economic life on the day of currency reform arose, as if at the sound of a bell... Even in the evening, the Germans wandered aimlessly around the cities in order to hardly obtain meager food. The next day everyone was thinking about what and how to produce. In the evening their faces expressed hopelessness, and in the morning the whole nation looked to the future with hope. There is no doubt that the decisive rise in the German economy began with monetary reform."

Erhard's reforms rapidly changed Germany and marked the birth of the hitherto unknown Soziale Marktwirtschaft, that is, the social market economy.

Social market economy

In carrying out his reforms, Erhard was far from the early capitalist, liberal understanding of the state as a “night watchman” who only protects the market. As he later wrote, for him the market was not an end in itself, but a means to achieve social goals, in particular, to overcome class differences in society and maximize the development of the country's creative forces. In Erhard's view, free private initiative and competition should be combined with the active role of the state in economic life. In an ideological sense, Erhard’s activities did not proceed in the mainstream of liberalism, and certainly not socialism, but in the mainstream of solidarity. But that's a different story...

Erhard’s “social market economy,” while encouraging private competition and creating commodity abundance, simultaneously took care of those who, due to objective reasons, could not be included on equal terms in the process of economic growth, who remained on the sidelines of development... And this is a very important feature: because Such an economy is called not only “market”, but also “social”. “Material well-being for everyone” turned out to be not so much a slogan as a principle for the development of the new Germany.

... On May 23, 1949, the creation of the Federal Republic of Germany was announced. Konrad Adenauer became the first Federal Chancellor, and Ludwig Erhard became the Minister of Economics. Clause 1 of Article 20 of the German Constitution stated that Germany is a democratic and social federal state. Thus, the concept of “welfare state” was enshrined in the basic law of the country. And according to the definition given in the German encyclopedia Brockhaus , social (Sozialstaat) is a state that uses its administrative and legal power to smooth out social contradictions and promote the social well-being of its citizens. The most important element of the state’s social policy is the protection of economically weaker sections of the population in order to ensure a decent existence for every person.

The world watched with interest and amazement the rise of the German economy. Even a term appeared: Wirtschaftswunder, or “German economic miracle.” During the period 1950-89, the gross national product of Germany grew from 98 billion to 2.237 billion German marks. The average monthly income of workers and employees increased from 243 to 3,192 DM. For more than 10 years in a row, Germany's economic growth was the highest in Europe and remained at around 8% per year. And Ludwig Erhard, the architect of this miracle, never tired of repeating: “The best social policy is a good economic policy.”

And in fact, thanks to the intensive development of the economy, a surplus product appeared that could be divided. At first, assistance was provided to the population affected by the war. Already in March 1950, food rationing, which had existed since 1939, was abolished. In the same year, a federal law on social security was passed, and in 1952, the War Damage Compensation Act was passed. All-German laws on expelled people and on maintaining maintenance in case of illness were also adopted, pension reform was carried out (1957) and “children’s money” began to be paid. Finally, in 1961, social assistance, known in immigrant circles as “social”, was introduced.

But despite all the social significance of socialism, this year, nevertheless, entered history completely differently. Does the phrase “Berlin crisis of 1961” mean nothing? What about the Berlin Wall?

Berlin Wall

On August 13, 1961, the wall, erected overnight, divided Berlin into two cities. She divided it “weightily, roughly, visibly.” Of course, by that time East Berlin was already the capital of the GDR, and Western Berlin had a special independent status, but the former occupation sectors were still connected by streets, metro (U-Bahn), and city railway (S-Bahn). In many ways, the city remained a single organism. On that memorable night, the communists slaughtered them alive. Along the living body of the city. Before the construction of the wall, the border between the Soviet and western sectors of Berlin was essentially open. The dividing line, 44.75 km long, ran right through streets and houses, canals and waterways. There were officially 81 street checkpoints and 13 crossings in the U-Bahn and S-Bahn systems. In addition, there were many illegal routes. Every day, from 300 to 500 thousand people crossed the border between both parts of the city for various reasons. Of these, a significant part were residents of the eastern part of the country, who decided to leave the socialist paradise forever. This caused constant dissatisfaction with the authorities of the GDR, but the status of the city was fixed by the Potsdam Agreements of the Allied Powers. We had to endure it, although our hands had long been itching to block the intra-city border.

For many reasons, the situation worsened in the summer of 1961. In July alone, more than 30 thousand East Germans fled the country. In total, more than 207 thousand people left the GDR that year. Mostly these were young, qualified specialists who were confident in their abilities, but could not find a worthy application for them at home. Outraged East German authorities accused West Berlin and Germany of “human trafficking,” “poaching” personnel and trying to thwart their economic plans. They claimed that the East Berlin economy loses 2.5 billion marks annually because of this. Maybe these numbers were correct...

From August 3 to 5, 1961, a meeting of the first secretaries of the communist parties of the socialist camp was held in Moscow, at which Ulbricht insisted on the immediate closure of the border in Berlin. He had been striving for this for a long time, but Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev hesitated. I didn’t want to violate the spirit and letter of Potsdam. But the frank simplicity of Ulbricht’s arguments outweighed everything: if you keep the border open in Berlin, then pretty soon the population of the GDR will migrate to the West. What kind of state of workers and peasants is this, from which all the workers and peasants are ready to make their living? And this is a showcase of socialism? This time Ulbricht received Khrushchev's go-ahead.

...By 1975, the Berlin Wall was no longer just a wall, but was a complex engineering complex consisting of:

• concrete fencing with a total length of 106 km and an average height of 3.6 meters;
• metal mesh fencing with a length of 66.5 km;
• signal fence under electric voltage, length 127.5 km;
• earthen ditches, 105.5 km long;
• anti-tank fortifications in certain areas;
• 302 guard towers and other border structures;
• strips of sharp spikes 14 cm long and even a control strip with constantly leveled sand.

And all THIS was built for many years only in order to keep the GDR Germans within the confines of their simple, small-sized happiness.

And they, stupid ones, could not realize the greatness of their historical mission as the builders of socialism and strove to the West in any way. For example, 28 people escaped through a 145-meter-long tunnel they dug themselves. Flights were made on a hang glider, in a hot air balloon made of nylon fragments, escaped along a rope thrown between the windows of neighboring houses, and even - I think, in a fit of cold rage - using a bulldozer to ram a wall.
According to statistics, between August 13, 1961 and November 9, 1989, there were 5,075 successful escapes to West Berlin or the Federal Republic of Germany, including 574 desertions from the National People's Army...

Unfortunately, not everyone was lucky... On August 12, 2007, the BBC reported that in the archives of the Ministry of State Security of the GDR (Stasi), a written order dated October 1, 1973 was found, ordering to shoot to kill all fugitives, without exception, including children. The British Radio Corporation, without disclosing its sources, claimed that we could be talking about more than a thousand dead...

Three freedoms

...The wall was demolished when it no longer made sense to support it, and there was no one to support it...But its historical role in world history is undoubted. The fate of socialism was sealed the moment this wall was erected. A paradox, it would seem? After all, the Wall was built to protect socialism... But if extreme efforts were needed to detain workers in the so-called state of workers, then this meant the conceptual death of the very idea of ​​socialism. The Germans voted with their feet for a welfare state, against a socialist one. They made their free choice. They were even ready to die for him - under the bullets of East German border guards...

Why, after all, the GDR was indeed an exemplary socialist country from the point of view of an ordinary Soviet person? Everyone who once visited East Germany was delighted: it was just as good there as in the USSR, only a little better. Everywhere is orderly, clean, neat. Excellent houses, wonderful roads, beautiful furniture, fashionable clothes... Beer, in general, was in abundance. What else does a working person need? Seriously, huh? Socialism in the German version provided a quite decent standard of living, for example, the apartment of a German worker in the East was no worse than in the West. Once visiting my friends in Munich, I noticed that the quality and layout of their two-room apartment in a nine-story panel building was no different from similar ones in Moscow, Kyiv or Leipzig. My friends didn’t even have a car - they had enough of public transport. Everything was quite modest from this point of view.

The wall proved that the working man still needed... freedom. From excessively frequent use, the concept of “freedom” has lost any meaning and turned into a hackneyed cliché. Whoever repeated this word for whatever reason... But it was for the sake of freedom that educated young Germans were ready to risk their lives by overcoming the Wall. The German welfare state attracted people not just with a higher standard of living, although this is important. The main thing was different. Sozialstaat ensured freedom in the economy (market capitalism), freedom in politics (liberal democracy) and freedom from poverty and misery (state social insurance). This unique trinity of freedoms, which distinguishes the social state, allowed the individual to be most fully realized. It was worth taking a risk for this... and taking a big risk, because on the scale of human values ​​there is nothing higher than self-realization.

What has not been said about the collapse of the USSR and the departure of socialism from the historical arena. Ronald Reagan's star wars program, the CIA conspiracy, Polish Solidarity coupled with the intrigues of the Pope, the lost war in Afghanistan, the sharp decline in oil prices, Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika, the Chernobyl disaster... and a lot of things they say were to blame for everything . Probably all these factors played a role, greater or lesser...it’s still impossible to weigh it on a pharmacist’s scale. But as post-war history has shown, the socialist experiment did not die because of external enemies, but was condemned by its own citizens who wanted a decent life. And not in the late 1980s, but much earlier, at the very beginning of the 1960s. Germany served as the platform for this experiment... maybe this somehow paid for the pain and suffering that it brought to humanity in the 20th century? It turned out that the social state was able to guarantee an even greater level of social security than the socialist one, without taking away individual rights and liberal freedoms in return. Socialism, with its only correct teaching, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Cheka and the Stasi, lost all meaning and was no longer needed by anyone.

Marxists were convinced that only violence could be the midwife of history. They were wrong. Fortunately. In the peaceful competition of the two systems, the social state defeated the socialist one, displacing it from geopolitical reality onto the pages of history textbooks. By the way, from a grammatical point of view, the difference between social and socialist is vanishingly small - just a different suffix. And it sounds almost the same.